Global Status: GXGlobal Status Last Reviewed: 28Apr2009Global Status Last Changed: 25Nov1996Rounded Global Status: GX - Presumed ExtinctReasons: This species is likely extinct due to domestic sewage. It has not been seen since the 1970s.Nation: United StatesNational Status: NX
(25Nov1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province StatusDue to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other
NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer,
for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward
in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data.
Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find
contact information for your jurisdiction.

Range Extent: Zero (no occurrences believed extant)Range Extent Comments: Historically, this species was restricted to the Tennessee River system, Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama (above Muscle Shoals), and the Cumberland River system, Kentucky and Tennessee (Johnson, 1978). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) list Tennessee historical distribution as the headwaters of the Tennessee River (Clinch, Powell, and Holston Rivers), in northeastern Tennessee, the Little Tennessee, and the main channel of the Tennessee River in east Tennessee (Ortmann, 1918). Based on archaeological specimens, prehistorically, this mussel occurred downstream in the Tennessee River as far as Perry and Decatur Cos. It also inhabited the Elk River in middle Tennessee. It was present in the Caney Fork River (a tributary to the Cumberland River), Smith Co., and in the main channel of the Cumberland River in Tennessee downriver to about Clarksville, Montgomery Co. (Johnson, 1978). In Alabama, it occurred in the Tennessee River downstream to Muscle Shoals and in the lower Elk River but has not been reported since the river was impounded (Mirarchi, 2004). In Kentucky it formerly occurred in the upper Columbia River below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003).

Area of Occupancy: 0 4-km2 grid cellsArea of Occupancy Comments:

Number of Occurrences: 0 (zero)Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is believed to be extinct (Stansberry, 1976). Previously, it was only known from one small stretch of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers in the 1970s. It also occurred in the upper Clinch River in Virginia (Jones et al., 2001). In Alabama, it occurred in the Tennessee River across teh state prehistorically, but all historical records were collected from Muscle Shoals and over the border in the Elk River, Tennessee (Williams et al., 2008).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)Short-term Trend Comments: This species is believed to be extinct (Stansberry, 1976). The last subpopulation was killed off by domestic sewage influxes.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%Long-term Trend Comments: This species is believed to be extinct (Stansberry, 1976). It went extinct in Alabama in the mid- to late 1800s (Williams et al., 2008). It was known historically from the upper Elk River, Tennessee (Isom et al., 1973).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Unknown

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution

Global Range:
(Zero (no occurrences believed extant))
Historically, this species was restricted to the Tennessee River system, Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama (above Muscle Shoals), and the Cumberland River system, Kentucky and Tennessee (Johnson, 1978). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) list Tennessee historical distribution as the headwaters of the Tennessee River (Clinch, Powell, and Holston Rivers), in northeastern Tennessee, the Little Tennessee, and the main channel of the Tennessee River in east Tennessee (Ortmann, 1918). Based on archaeological specimens, prehistorically, this mussel occurred downstream in the Tennessee River as far as Perry and Decatur Cos. It also inhabited the Elk River in middle Tennessee. It was present in the Caney Fork River (a tributary to the Cumberland River), Smith Co., and in the main channel of the Cumberland River in Tennessee downriver to about Clarksville, Montgomery Co. (Johnson, 1978). In Alabama, it occurred in the Tennessee River downstream to Muscle Shoals and in the lower Elk River but has not been reported since the river was impounded (Mirarchi, 2004). In Kentucky it formerly occurred in the upper Columbia River below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other
NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer,
for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward
in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data.
Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find
contact information for your jurisdiction.

U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources)

Ecology & Life History

Reproduction Comments: The glochidial host of this species has not been determined.Habitat Type: FreshwaterNon-Migrant: NLocally Migrant: NLong Distance Migrant: NRiverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVERSpecial Habitat Factors: BenthicHabitat Comments: This species inhabited medium to large rivers, amongst riffle-beds in gravel and sand.

Economic AttributesNot yet assessed

Management SummaryNot yet assessed

Population/Occurrence Delineation

Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information. Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance. Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls. Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 kmSeparation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 kmAlternate Separation Procedure:NoneSeparation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence. Date: 18Oct2004 Author: Cordeiro, J. Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.

Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org
were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018. Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and
all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company
names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

Restrictions
on Use:Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from
this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:

The above copyright notice
must appear in all copies;

Any use of the documents available
from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance
for commercial purposes;

Some data may be downloaded
to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data
should still be referenced using the citation above;

No graphics available from
this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying
text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed
as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right
under any trademark of NatureServe. No
trademark owned by NatureServe may be used
in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents
delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above,
nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or
right under any NatureServe copyright.

Information
Warranty Disclaimer: All
documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents
which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without
warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific
data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard
to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are
referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all
implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular
purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about
the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other
documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall
NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential
damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with
the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided
by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked
to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update
or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without
notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information
contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually
being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a
year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and
informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed
for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies.
If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate
state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted
for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit
Local Programs).

Feedback
Request: NatureServe
encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions
that you find in the data through (see Contact
Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall
quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.